Allahabad Court December 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Firm Baijnath-balmakund Vs. Chedi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.59
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore disallowing execution of a decree applied for by the appellant. It appears that a compromise decree was passed in favour of the appellant for Rs. 20,000. The decree, however, provided that if a sum of Rs. 13,000 was paid in the manner stated in the compromise it would be fully satisfied. If, on the other hand, payment was not made in the manner agreed on, the decree-holder would be entitled to take out execulion for the entire amount. The manner of payment referred to in the compromise was in five instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 2,500 was payable on December 22, 3929, the second one of the same amount on June 22, 1930, the third of the same amount on December 22, 1930, the 4th of the same amount on June 22, 1931, and the last instalment of Rs. 3,000 was payable on December 22, 1931. The compromise proceeded to lay down that in case the defendants failed to pay the instalments ...
(Firm) Baijanath-balmakund Vs. Chedi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All748
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge pf Cawnpore, disallowing execution, of a decree -applied for by the appellant. It appears that a compromise decree was passed in favour of the appellant for Rs. 20,000. The decree, however provided that if a sum of Rs. 13,000 was paid in the manner stated in the compromise it would be fully satisfied. If, on the other hand, payment was not made in the manner agreed on, the decree-holder would be entitled to take out execution for the entire amount. The manner of payment referred to in the compromise was in five instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 2,500 was payable on 22nd December 1929, the second one of the same amount on 22nd June 1930, the third of the same amount on 22nd December 1930, the 4th of the same amount on 22nd June 1931, and the last instalment of Rs. 3,000 was payable on 22nd December 1931. The compromise proceeded to lay down that in case the defendants failed to pay the insta...
Alopi DIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All366; 157Ind.Cas.205
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of one Pt. Alopi Din, secretary of the District Board of Banda, against an order of the District Magistrate, dated 5th. September 1934. committing him for trial to the Court of Session along with three other persons Pt. Salig Ram, engineer of the District Board, Thakur Babu Singh, sub-overseer, and Suraj Prasad, a contractor, under Sections 120-B, 420, 477(a), Penal Code, in the case of all the accused, and Section 218, Penal Code, in the case of Alopi Din and Section 218/109, Penal Code, in the case of the three other accused. There was a complaint by B. Damodar Prasad, junior vice chairman of the District Board, against these four accused persons and the police made an investigation into the complaint and the case was prosecuted. When the prosecution began the prosecuting inspector addressed the Court and the Court passed the following order:The Prosecuting Inspector in opening the case said that he wanted to pro...
Mt. Ram Dulari Vs. Bhola
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All398; 157Ind.Cas.1021
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendant's application against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dated 16th August 1934. restoring the plaintiff's suit on condition that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 200 as costs to the defendant. The application is made on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to restore the suit which had been dismissed on 10th April 1934. The circumstances which led up to these proceedings are as follows: A. suit was filed in forma pauperis in 1932 by two plaintiffs, Dukhi and Bhola who were father and son. This suit was one relating to property valued at over two lacs of rupees, and it was against the widow of one Bisheshar, deceased, on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled to the property for reasons with which we are not now concerned. The application to sue in forma pauperis was allowed, issues were struck on 27th April 1933 and the dates fixed for final hearing were December the 4th to 7th 1933. In the meanwhile the plaintiff had ap...
Ram Sakal Mullah and anr. Vs. Nageshar Mullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All481; 157Ind.Cas.333
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patient appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing their appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the trial Court claiming an exclusive right to ferry across the river Sarju between two ghats. One of these ghats is situate on the land belonging to the zamindars of Bansthana village while the other is across the river on the land belonging to the zamindans of Mobarakpur.3. The plaintiffs came to Court on the allegations that they, and before them their ancestors, had been plying a ferry between the aforesaid two ghats and had thus had acquired an exclusive right to it as against every one, that the defendants had started a rival ferry without any right and were preventing the plaintiffs from carrying on their trade. It may be stated here that the plaintiffs are licencees from the zamindars of Bansthana.4. The defendants denied that they had set up a n...
P. Mohan Lal Gautam Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All369
Harries, J.1. This is an application by Mohan Lal Gautam for revision of an order convicting him of an offence under Section 18(1), Press Act.2. The applicant was charged before the learned Magistrate with two offences, namely, one, under Section 18(1), Press Act, and the other under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment. Act. He was convicted of both offences and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in respect of each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of the Allahabad District set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act, but affirmed the conviction end sentence under Section 18(1), Press Act,3. In revision it is now contended before this Court that this conviction is bad in law as the proved and admitted facts disclose no offence against the section in question. The facts of the case are not in dispute and can briefly be stated as follows: On 15th December 1933, the applicant ordered fro...
Emperor Vs. Dipu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All850; 158Ind.Cas.424
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application on behalf of the Local Government against an order of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur allowing the appeals of the three respondents in a case under Section 110, Criminal P.C.2. Proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., were taken in the trial Court against Jagrup, Girdhari, Dipu, Raghunath and Harnandan. They were all bound over to be of good behaviour for a period of one year by the learned Deputy Magistrate. Against that order appeals were preferred by the above named persons in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. He came to the conclusion that the case was established against Harnandan and. Jagrup and their appeals were dismissed. As regards Dipu, Raghunath and Girdhari, he found that the prosecution evidence did not justify their being bound over, and he, therefore set aside order of the trial Court and discharged these three persons. The revision application has been made against the order of the learned Sessions Judg...
Baswa Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All216
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of one Baswa a sweeper in the employment of the Municipal Board of Atrauli in Aligarh. District who has been convicted of an. offence under Section 85, U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of 1916). The accused gave a notice to the Municipal Board saying:I would strike work from 6th August 1934 if certain of my grievances were not redressed by 30th July 1934.2. The notice is dated 6th July 1934. The case for the prosecution was that the Board considered the matter at a meeting and stated that the grievances of the sweepers would be considered if they withdrew their notice by 8 a.m., on 3rd August 1934, that the Board after that date began to enlist new sweepers and when the sweepers who had given notices discovered this, they made an application Ex. 2 to the Secretary of the Board in the presence of the Chairman withdrawing their notices. The accused was one of the persons making the application Ex. 2. The recruitment of new...
Secy. of State Vs. Neaz Ali Hamid Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All407
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision on behalf of the defendant the Secretary of State (representing East Indian Railway, against a decree of a Small Cause Court of Agra, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 466 damages. Some points were taken by the learned Government advocate on, behalf of the applicant in revision against details of the decretal amount and he pointed out that Rs. 74 for interest allowed was calculated on the total claim of Rs. 573 and the interest should have been reduced by the Court when the Court held that the amount due to the plaintiff as damages, was Rs. 392 and not, Rs. 575. These details however need not be further considered as it appears to me that the suit is barred on the ground of limitation. The admitted facts are that;a consignment of 30 bags of rice was sent to the plaintiff from Saharanpur to Agra and arrived on 3rd August 1931. A letter is on the file of the Court dated 5th August 1931 from the plaintiff to the defendant alleging that the consi...
Ramchandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All520
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Ramchandra who has been convicted by a Magistrate under Section 60(b) and (f), U.P. Excise Act, sentenced to six months and three-months' concurrent rigorous imprisonment under these sections and fine. The conviction and sentences were up-held by the Sessions Court. The evidence for the prosecution consisted of Sub-Inspector, Abdul Hai Khan of. Bareilly Kotwali, P.W. 2, Lakhpat Rai, son of Raghuber Dayal Kayastha, P.W. 3, Banne Khan, occupation given as service. These three persons state that on 25th March 1934, the house of the accused was searched and materials for the manufacture of illicit liquor were recovered and liquor was actually being manufactured and the accused, was present. The accused stated that he was not present, but he was working at a certain printing press and was called by the police. He states, that he locked up his house inside and. left the outside door open. He states, that none of the articles connect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »